No more D1 Track regionals?

First off, this is a PROPOSAL that the coaches association will vote on. If the coaches association approves, then it goes to the NCAA T&F Committee, and then the NCAA Championship Committee, then the NCAA Bracket & Format Committee, then the NCAA Budget Committee. So anyone who thinks this is only the first step is not understanding the issue.

Right now we have a system that is broke. There are 1100 athletes in the East regional and 700 in the West. In the West they didn't even have to run finals in some events because of the lack of entries. It is patently unfair to have 200 runners in the East have to run a PR to even think about making the final and have the West have 7 athletes show up and jog through the race.

If we really want to make the NCAA meaningful then we will model it after the best track meet in the world every 4 years - the U.S. Olympic Trials.

We need proactive thinkers, not people who always cry that the sky is falling. This is not the death wish for distance runners, what it does if force them to show up and race. And it will give MORE folks a chance to qualify for the NCAA's because there will be less doubling.

Just one guys opinion.

Racing runners into the ground is not what is best for them. Yes, the system is broken. No, this is not better. Imagine runners trying to run NCAAs and qualify for World or Olympic games. They will be dead because of 7 hard 1500s in 20 days.

Flaws of the new plan:

1.) Distance runners will not be able to double.

2.) The value of the sprinter will increase even more than it already is meaning less scholarship opportunities for distance runners. We need some distance relays or a 3000m in outdoor track to balance out the events.

3.) Costs! The NCAA will only pick up the tab if your athlete is in the final 16 and then they only pick up 7 days worth of per diem plus the flight. So 48 athletes and their coaches for each event have to travel (fly for most people) to a national site get hotels, get food, etc... and they won't even really know when they will return because the length of the meet is uncertain because you don't know if you will make it to the round of 32 or 16 or 8. Schools pay for regionals but that is a two day geographically friendly meet. If you fly how to do know when to book a return trip. You better book for the entire 11 day event which means you're likely spending around $2000 per person (Hotel - ~11 days x $110, Food x 11 Days @ 35 per day, Airline Ticket approx. $500). Then add in rental cars plus maybe even additional days if you compete early in the meet and come early. So you're looking at maybe $4500-5000 for one athlete and their coach. This proposal WILL die because of costs. Mid-major administrators and presidents will not pass this because track is already too expensive in their mind. And yes there are more of us mid-majors than thier are BCS schools. If the mid-majors show up at the convention then we can do whatever we want to the BCS schools.

THIS PROPOSAL WILL FAIL.

The current system is not as broken as people think. Right now the best kids make it to nationals and it's obvious they are competing very well at nationals. Plus the regionals have given mid level kids something to shoot for and now our depth is getting unreal. Soon it will take sub 14 to qualify for regionals in the 5K!! That's exciting and will lead to better front of the pack performances in the future. So right now maybe a few less than deserving sprinters get in from the west but that has no effect on the national meet team title. It's not that broke. Maybe the west region schools just need to recruit some sprinters. I can't believe they give up those points. The system isn't broke, it's the west region coaches who are bu not recruiting all the events.

Maybe they are trying to avoid athletes letting their teammates win the conferance championships, But maybe not i dont know.

But i do know is that midnight runner is a bum, and afternoon/morning runner is a TROLL

I have no problem with a 10k runner running 2 10k's in an 11-day period. If the athlete wants to double in the 5000 he/she'll have 4 races in that 11-day period, which would be really tough.

It also means that a 1500m runner would have 4 races in the 11-day period; isn't that too many?

There are more schools in the East Region, there are more people in the East, there are more athletes in the East. It is mind boggling though that the West cannot produce more quality sprinters. I guess it's a stereotype or a nostalgic thought that the schools in the region always have good sprinters. Not the case anymore.

What's the difference between the new (proposed) system and the old system? You still need to hit a qualifying mark in the current system. And at the regional meet there are two rounds you need to get out of before heading off to the national meet where there still are two more rounds. It seems like practical reasons will keep this from happening-a very expensive trip, finding a host site that can handle 11 days, etc...Is the regional realignment idea still on the table?

Current system:

School ends May 15 or so. Regionals are May 29-30. Nationals run from June 11 to June 14.

Proposed system:

School ends May 15 or so. Regionals are May 29-May 30. Nationals are June 4 to June 7.

Current system:

Everyone pays for regionals.

Proposed system:

Those who make the championships will have the costs of regionals greatly reduced as there will be a 7 day per diem and the cost of flying will be covered.

Coaches should book flights home after regionals. If the kid makes the nationals, then the change and associated costs will be covered by NCAA. If the kid doesn't make nationals, it's much the same cost as current system - except they're going home a week earlier.

So... trying to understand the system. Say McDougal runs qualifiers in the 1500, 5000, and 10000. Obviously he's not going to want to run all three, that's 8 races in 11 days. So he opts out of the 1500. Does the next guy down the list in the 1500 get the invite? Or do they simply put a DNS next to McDougal's name in his first round and move on?

I would assume the former, just making sure though.

Oh, and when would this, if voted on first time through by all the necessary parties, be enacted? It mentioned 2009's budget in the link, could it be changed that soon?

Page 14-15 is by far the most fair plan, but having the steeple run three races in 11 days is still retarded.

Simple regional realignment would seem to be the easiest way to go...if one has more then another shift teams...way does this have to be so hard...other award national bids proportionally to field size...if there are 50 athletes in an event in one region and 20 in another, give more bids to the larger region...

Are all XC regionals created equal? No...in both size and quality...is anyone proposing we do this for XC? No...because its a stupid idea...just like its a stupid idea for track...

there are a lot of ways to fix regional...super 64 isn't one of them...

Did you know? They used to run heats in the 10,000 in the Olympics. I think this was last done in '92. College runners need to get used to running heats. An Olympian running the 5k and 10k already races 3 times in 9 days. In the past distance runners would double back the same day, the next day, etc. Train for the scenerio you are going to be faced with....instead of complaining about it. They are trying to cut back on the number of guys running a race at regionals that they have no intention of racing at nationals. How many guys do you think are going to double? Not many.

Alan

Yes, let's have Galen Rupp run 2 10k race, 2 5k races, then run US champs two weeks later 2 10k races, then go to the world championships to run another 10k. Oh yea and he will run pac-10 10k and Cardinal. Let us run all our top talent into the ground.

Why can't they just go back to the way it was 5-6 years ago? Descending order list, the top runners get in, people can double, and that's that. It worked for years before that, why did they have to go f*** it up in the first place? That's the way the USA championships work, that's the way the NCAAs should work.

I can't imagine the coaches voting this proposal in. I can imagine that if I was a coach, the thought that I would have to spend 11+ days at the sight of the NCAA championships would be enough to make me vote in the best interest of myself (which is NOT spending a week and a half in a hotel room, away from my friends and family). In fact, I can imagine that if I was an athlete, there are a lot of things I would rather do than spend 11+ days at the NCAA championship site.

Shouldnt the NCAA focusing on fixing the BCS? Why waste time with track...

it wasn't that long ago that 18-20 people qualified for each event at nationals.

why was that system changed in the first place? would going back to a system more like that be the best option?

i noticed in the proposal that the NCAA likes having conference champs automatically qualify, but that exceptions are made for sports with relatively small NCAA championship fields.

it seems to me that something in between the previous system (i.e. pre-regionals system) and the proposed system would be more ideal.

for example, 32 athletes per event, all based on a performance list. you still get an increase in chances to qualify as compared to the previous system. to me at least, being among the top 75 in an event (which is approximately where the cut-off is likely to be when scratches are taken into account) is too soft of a standard to make the national championship meet. and it seems like unnecessary to provide the self-esteem boost to those between around 50 and 75 at the cost of the legs of our top runners.

limiting the field to the top 32 would eliminate a full round in most events. it would also be a field size that would allow making nationals to be a meaningful accomplishment. i don't know whether the NCAA would be willing to pick up the tab for all 32 athletes in each event. if they would be, i'd think most coaches would prefer the 32-person fields. (although some coaches might prefer 64-person fields to boost their bios).

my biggest complain about the 64 person field sizes is that they potentially hurt the top runners without providing much benefit except the preservation of the achievement of making the regional meet. for a 1500 runner, for example, who comes from a major conference with a team in contention for a conference championship, he could be running 5-6 championship races between mid-may and mid-june followed by USATF perhaps 2 weeks later. how can such a runner get any quality workouts in after late april? and how can such a runner be any good after late june as a result?

i recognize that the college system has no responsibility to be concerned about anything other than the college system. at the same time, i think this type of required over-racing will lead to more top runners opting out of NCAA athletics.

I'm confused. How many people will get in to nationals in each running event -- 8? Why would they run one heat of 8 in the finals of the Sweet 16? Isn't that basically just the national championship race, and a really small one at that?

Am I missing something?

I disagree with the underlying purpose of the regional system,i.e. balancing the number of athletes competing in the national championship across the four regions. Why does there need to be a balance?

The National Championship should be a contest between the teams with the fastest runners, longest jumpers, etc. Track and field isn't basketball or football where quantatively evaluating the best team is difficult and often discretionary. You need a championship tournament in sports like basketball and baseball because determining the best team involves a multitude of discretionary factors (strength of opponents, conferences etc.. Whereas evaluating the best team in track field is rather simple: it's the team with the best and most qualifying times and marks.

I guess the NCAA wants to spread the "wealth" by allowing teams and athletes that would otherwise not make the National Championship based on their peformances to participate in Nationals. However, sports, and track and field in particular are not a democracy, but a meritocracy. Qualifying for nationals should be based on meeting performance standards period.